Things have not been going well for the climate change alarmists. It was revealed that a prominent Greenpeace activist, Sven Teske, had been a lead author of a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change renewable energy report.

A press release from the IPCC on May 9, contained the following statement:

Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

The study on which this remarkable statement was based was not released until a month later. By then the claim was out there, but the media had moved on. Steve McIntyre looked into the study and found that the scenario in the press was derived from a report issued by Greenpeace and the European Energy Council. In other words, green activists and lobbyists collaborated to disseminate something pretending to be “science.” This is usually termed a conflict of interest. Aside from just being wrong.

Then the University of Colorado”s Seal Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, causing criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring” said James Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute. “There is really no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda.”

But that’s not all. The Bishop Hill Blog reveals the incestuous relationship between the EU and governments, quasi-autonomous organizations and NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Organizations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favor of the policies that the EU wants, and the IPCC takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. It is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise that surprises. But to ask questions about this incestuous process is to be labeled as a “denier” supposedly paid by fossil fuel interests. Pointing out the implications for democracy and the economy is characterized by “denying scientific evidence.”

Then the Supreme Court dismissed a frivolous and novel “global warming” lawsuit. Radical environmentalists are in trouble when a unanimous court rules against you and Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes the opinion. Eight states and several land trusts sued five of the largest American power companies, including the Southern Company and the TVA. They claimed that carbon dioxide emissions of the companies’ power pants are a public nuisance that violate federal common law. They wanted a federal judge to set emissions standards. Alito and Thomas wrote a short concurrence in which they questioned the erroneous conclusion of the Court that carbon dioxide is even a “pollutant” that is covered under the Clean Air Act.

And to top it all off, a federal court has sharply rebuked the EPA for exceeding its statutory authority. On May 26, 2011, Judge Ricard Leon of the federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that the agency’s regulatory process cannot trump a clear Congressional mandate, not override judicial authority to compel EPA’s compliance with the law. At issue was the statutory maximum time frame for EPA’s final decision to issue a Prevention of Significant Deterioration air-quality permit, a fundamental authorization for large industrial sources such as power plants and refineries. The EPA readily admitted that it had violated the one-year statutory deadline, but essentially that the EPA had made a regulatory process created for the convenience of the Administrator. A kind of arrogance that is characteristic of this administration. The Judge called the EPA claims “horsefeathers” and said “their argument was too clever by half.” “That dog won’t hunt,” he added.

Such is the recent activity in the environmental bureaucracy. It was a good week for common sense. There are enormous amounts of money involved and misleading media reports, and attacks on democracy and public welfare.

The picture above has nothing to do with the stories here, but I love seeing Russian cops carrying off a Greenpeace activist. Makes me laugh from sheer pleasure.